Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building-Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things

by Ann Taves

How the sciences of the mind can advance the study of religion

The essence of religion was once widely thought to be a unique form of experience that could not be explained in neurological, psychological, or sociological terms. In recent decades scholars have questioned the privileging of the idea of religious experience in the study of religion, an approach that effectively isolated the study of religion from the social and natural sciences. Religious Experience Reconsidered lays out a framework for research into religious phenomena that reclaims experience as a central concept while bridging the divide between religious studies and the sciences.

Ann Taves shifts the focus from "religious experience," conceived as a fixed and stable thing, to an examination of the processes by which people attribute meaning to their experiences. She proposes a new approach that unites the study of religion with fields as diverse as neuroscience, anthropology, sociology, and psychology to better understand how these processes are incorporated into the broader cultural formations we think of as religious or spiritual. Taves addresses a series of key how can we set up studies without obscuring contestations over meaning and value? What is the relationship between experience and consciousness? How can research into consciousness help us access and interpret the experiences of others? Why do people individually or collectively explain their experiences in religious terms? How can we set up studies that allow us to compare experiences across times and cultures?

Religious Experience Reconsidered demonstrates how methods from the sciences can be combined with those from the humanities to advance a naturalistic understanding of the experiences that people deem religious.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Psychology, Anthropology, Theory, School, Mysticism

232 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly recommended for anyone interested in the phenomenon called "religious experience." Taves reframes that as "experiences deemed religious," writing that "This shift in terminology reflects my interest in exploring the processes whereby experiences come to be understood as religious at multiple levels, from the intrapersonal to the intergroup." Taves proposes an interdisciplinary (humanities + sciences) framework for understanding such experiences. An excellent book, despite some distracting proofreading lapses.

[Elizabeth Vilchis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ann Taves’ focus on “making things special” connects religious behavior with other kinds of human activity by encompassing religious behavior within the parameters of “special”. In that manner, human acitvity can be analyzed continually without a religious lens, but also with a new lens that offers the ability to compare and contrast human activity of all kinds. This is part of the building block approach that she was advocating for, that breaks down human activity into analysis of what humans deem special. While Taves mentioned this harkens back to a Durkheimian theory of sacred vs. profane, she also explained that the sacred is never entirely in a vacuum from all that is profane. In essence, they exist simultaneously and within the same settings, so there ought to be a new methodology, according to Tave. Tave presented her building block approach to break down a methodology regarding how humans consider something special versus what they don’t. Regarding behavior, much of which is daily human activity, that is actually not sacred, Taves stated, “...are separable from religions and at the same time provide the fundamental raw material that people use to construct “religions””(Taves, 2010). Through considering the “other” activities, we can see how and why humans consider the “special” in the sense that they do. Taves stated, “I think it makes more sense from an evolutionary perspective to start with the broader, more inclusive class of things that people consider special and see how people who distinguish between things they consider religious, sacred, magical, superstitious, etc. position them within that larger class of things”(Taves, 2010). By doing this, we can then examine how these particular behaviors and their respective implications helped mold various societies and civilizations.
This cultural evolutionary approach, according to Taves, is diachronic and synchronic, allowing for multiple venues of analysis. Taves claimed this characteristic of labeling certain things as “special” is the very fabric of human society (Taves, 2010). This approach also widens the possibilities for understanding religion-like behavior and it’s absence among various cultures, groups, and societies. In addition, it steers away from supernatural considerations, and is geared more towards value-based analyses, which can link to actual scientific studies in other fields. Undoubtedly, the scientific fields of biology, anatomy, neuroscience, medicine, etc. do not operate in the supernatural realm. However, if we use Taves’ theory and break religion down into a system of valuation, by placing it in a larger conceptual framework of what humans deem “special”, then there is a more quantitative possibility to be considered. Furthermore, Taves explained how this supernatural approach is intrinsically linked to hierarchical comparative religious studies in cross-cultural contexts, giving ample examples. She explained that by considering only the abstract parameters of “religion” or “spirituality” when examining various cultures, we are setting ourselves up for comparison, translation, and those two most often fall right into the pit of hierarchical categorization, like primative, savage, etc. (Taves, 2013).
While I found myself nodding along in agreement with Taves a couple of times, I don’t surmise that her theories are very popular. I do think it’s important for humans to understand we are but one species of countless others on this planet. In that manner, we ought to behave a little more like we acknowledge that. This is especially true when considering religious discourse, because Abrahamic religions, right down to their creation stories– tell the tale of how the planet was created and their gift from an almighty and powerful deity. That very notion has enabled humans to bend the planet to their will, with no recourse for their actions, acting solely on the notion that the planet belongs to them and is theirs to do as they see fit. This very notion is the opposite of the ethos and worldview seen in many Indigenous cultures and subcultures. So, I think she should carry on full speed ahead with that concept. We, as humans, definitely should not forget that we are a species of animal, not something superior, above, and more deserving than the rest. By doing this, we would be able to be more mindful of our impact to the planet. Although Taves didn’t specifically mention that, I am. That mindset has actually been spoken on for generations now. Think of Historian Lynn Townsend White Jr. However, the entire process that she laid out, regarding evolutionary theory in application to religion is quite interesting, and I look to see more people adopt that, in the future. However, I’m sure that she will not be welcomed kindly by people who are opposed to evolutionary theory, entirely. To be more specific, the scholars and professionals that belong to Abrahamic faiths will likely disregard her theories. Furthermore, others will disregard her theories for not being in alignment with the hierarchy that’s been so present in the study of religions. By this, I mean– her theory calls for viewing religion as just “something special” and not something divine, ranking all of us humans together in a process. Those with underlying agendas, beliefs, prejudices, etc. will not find themselves upheld as superior within her theories, so she will face blowback from them. I understand what she’s trying to accomplish. However, it’s an immeasurably tall order. She is trying reconcile religious studies with biological research, while also uniting humans on one front. While, many will see her admirable for this, others will condemn her for it. Her process on paper, was very psychology-based. I just don’t think it’s feasible. She’s attempting to wed too many huge fields together. So, in that manner, it seems like she may have actually been interested in science at some point, then turned to religion, or vice versa. Trying to reconcile these fields over the subject data of “all of humanity” is a task that is going to take alot more than one theorist. And while I have seen hints of this in other theorists, authors, scholars, etc., I think it’s outside of the scope of what many people would consider either biological or religious. Her strength is in her theoretical model. Her arguments were incredibly dense, packed with example, reference, and process. However, her actual script was lacking much human element. Her discourse was about humans, but it didn’t feel very human to me. It felt so scientific, that it lacked the consideration of human experience in the details. Maybe, if I had read more of her work, I would have a better understanding of her theory. However, the required readings felt so robotic, lacking a human consideration of emotion. However, as a Historian– I think her process would actually open the doors for consideration of historical context within religious studies. For example, if we break down a culture’s activities to what they deem “special” versus what they don’t– this would leave the analysis open to incorporation of historical events that the culture has underwent and we could analyze how those things molded their society. So, I don’t completely disregard her theories. I think they need more consideration.

Taves, A. “No Field Is an Island: Fostering Collaboration between the Academic Study of Religion and the Sciences,” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 22 (2010): 170-188.

Taves, A. “Building Blocks of Sacralities: A New Basis for Comparison across Cultures and Religions,” In R. F. Paloutzian and C. L. Park, eds. Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2nd ed. (New York: Guilford, 2013,) 138-161

[Roger Green · Rating 5 out of 5]

Taves delineates new disciplinary ways to track religious experience by suggesting an "ascriptive" approach rather than a preset cognitive notion of religion that we might then order experience into. This makes her emphasize how we may categorize multiple experiences as "special" and occasionally "religious." This is an important updating of the classic views on religious experience in William James and Wayne Proudfoot, offered in the spirit of locating best methods for the study of religion.

[Nikki Leick · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was just not what I was anticipating? Very dense, very methodical, very written as if to cater towards cognitive scientists. Which, I suppose, makes sense as Taves attempts to bridge the interdisciplinary gap between humanities-sciences.

The majority of the book, though, was spent talking methods and definitional technicalities rather than actually, comparatively looking into “special” things across religious-nonreligious spaces. Don’t get me wrong— Taves makes a good argument with HOW to approach religion; I just wish she spent the book actually doing so. Not a book whose argument/point felt particularly revolutionary (dare I say special) to me.

[Michael Hubbard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Taves demonstrates, whether one agrees or not, that cognitive and social science can’t be ignored in the twenty first century study of religious experience.

[Jessica Zu · Rating 5 out of 5]

experience deemed religious & special things ...
special paths

[Timothy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rigorous, dense, and though-provoking book.... it will take some time for the implications of what Taves proposes here to be felt, but it has the potential to re-frame the way "religion" is studied in very productive and helpful ways. The main contribution she makes is twofold, from my initial reading: 1) she reassesses how "religion" is studied by shifting the discussion from the (interminable) problems of defining "religion" or "the sacred" to the larger perspectives of how and why people set things apart as "special." This approach allows her to (or at least promise to) bridge the enormous gap between those who tend to explain religion away (via attribution; people just attribute religious concepts to things that can be explained naturally) and those who tend to presume the existence of super-natural phenomena (seeing "the sacred" and religion itself as sui generis, and thereby determining the field according to its formative prejudices within Judeo-Christian traditions). And 2), despite the very broad context of "things deemed special" (among which those deemed religious would be just a subset), she brings real precision to bear on proposed research methods through utilizing substantive reading in neuroscience. The mind of this reader is reeling with wonder at how research in religion may be furthered with this "building block" approach, and with possibilities concerning how the approach can be refined, developed, augmented, and pursued. The book is quite some work to get through, but it is well worth the work.

[Noah · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is academically dense, and I don't think I come from a place where the problem she is trying to address even registers for me (and/or she doesn't articulate it clearly enough). Taves is trying to bridge religious studies with social/natural scientific methodology and knowledge -- and though I'm certainly supportive of interdisciplinary work, her project doesn't feel convincingly part of religious studies, but rather is more interested in psychological/neuroscientific/? understandings of "special" experiences. I'm interested in her premise that, in the study of religion, we should compare things that are typically defined as religious with similarly special things that are not usually considered religious (patriotism, for example) -- this to me feels like it has a lot of traction. But then that didn't seem to be where she went -- rather than focusing on more societal and everyday specialness (that which is produced socially and economically especially), she focused on the "special experiences" of dreams, hallucinations, visions, etc. This is honestly just not that interesting to me and also not where I thought she was going based on her orientation to the project.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first chapter of this book is, to put it gently, methodologically dubious, ambitious, and scatter brained. The second chapter of this book is absolutely and unequivocally atrocious.

However:

The third chapter of this book is one of the best chapters i have read in a long time. Taves takes attribution theory to religious theory, trying to show that sacredness is attributed by religious people onto what she calls 'things'--objects, events, or relations. In spite of her rhetorical moves, Taves is clearly a biological constructivist. Her use of 'neutral' theoretical language is also very attractive, though it is certainly philosophically impossible.